i've read everywhere that you can use the "cost" option on dlsw commands to force routers to prefer on peer over another.also i read that if i use the "cost" option on a "dlsw remote-peer" command it'll overwrite any cost sent by that remote peer during capabilities exchange.
now i tried this in a controlled environment and here's the results:
a)if i use the "cost" option on a "dlsw local-peer" command on router A, router B would get the proper cost value (via the capabilities exchange).
b)if i add the "cost" option with a different value in router B's "dlsw remote-peer" command, the cost does not get overwritten.
c)if i don't use the "cost" option on the "dlsw local-peer" command on router A AND use the "cost" option on the "dlsw remote-peer" command on router B, i still get the default cost value of 2.
my conclusion is:
cost works if i apply it using "dlsw local-peer"
it doesn't work when using "dlsw remote-peer".
i'm running 12.0(19). anyone seen this? any comments?
We have 3 identical switches configured by someone else and would like to claim some of the Gigabit ports(G1/G2/G3/G4) for use on servers. When we try to change the wiring and configuration, we run in to connectivity issues. Attached is a des...
This is actually a pretty cool feature, i didn't even know it existed until I was looking for a solution to advertise a subnet (prefix in BGP talk), only if a certain condition existed. This is exactly what conditional advertisements does
j ai une question j ai achete un routeur cisco 887VA-k9 , je le configuré avec la configuration ci- dessous
si je le lier avec mon pc portable sur l un de ses ports directement ça marche toute est bien ( la connexion internet + m...